1 / 37

Derivation of a Risk-Based Remediation Standard for Methamphetamine

Derivation of a Risk-Based Remediation Standard for Methamphetamine. Charles Salocks, Ph.D., DABT California Environmental Protection Agency. Remediation Standards for Meth. Current OR, AR: 0.05 µg/100 cm 2 WA, eight others: 0.1 µg/100 cm 2 CO, MI: 0.5 µg/100 cm 2 Proposed

ziya
Download Presentation

Derivation of a Risk-Based Remediation Standard for Methamphetamine

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Derivation of a Risk-Based Remediation Standard for Methamphetamine Charles Salocks, Ph.D., DABT California Environmental Protection Agency

  2. Remediation Standards for Meth • Current • OR, AR: 0.05 µg/100 cm2 • WA, eight others: 0.1 µg/100 cm2 • CO, MI: 0.5 µg/100 cm2 • Proposed • California: 1.0 – 1.5 µg/100 cm2

  3. Overview • Toxicity of methamphetamine • Qualitative: adverse effects on health • Quantitative: doses that elicit toxic effects • Development of a reference dose (RfD) • Models for estimating exposure • Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) • SHEDS-Multimedia • Calculation of a cleanup standard

  4. Fundamental Risk Equation • Toxicity extremes: water and botulinum toxin • Toxicity never equals zero • Exposure may be zero • Toxicity is constant; we reduce or eliminate risk by controlling exposure Risk = Toxicity x Exposure

  5. Strategy for Setting a Standard • Develop an RfD for methamphetamine • Estimate exposure from surface residues • Identify a surface residue level that produces a daily dose  the RfD

  6. Reference Dose (RfD) “…an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure level for the human population, including sensitive subpopulations, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects.” • Reflects toxicity and data uncertainty • Calculation: No Effect Level / Uncertainty Factor(s) = RfD

  7. Identifying an RfD for Meth • Based on the most sensitive endpoint for toxicity • For methamphetamine, we considered any effect to be a toxic effect • Rationale: a dose low enough to prevent the occurrence of the most sensitive toxicity endpoint will prevent the occurrence of all other toxic effects

  8. Effects of Meth in Humans • Increased blood pressure • Sense of well-being • Dilation of pupils • Improved repetitive and complex task performance • Reduced appetite and caloric intake • Sleep disturbance and insomnia

  9. Minimally Effective Doses • Absorption rate into the CNS is critical; route of exposure and drug formulation are essential considerations • Adults appear to be more sensitive than children • 5 mg/day (oral) generally produces subtle effects in children and adults

  10. Principal Study: Basis of RfD Control of Weight Gain in Pregnancy, Utilizing Methamphetamine (Chapman, 1961) • Not an evaluation of birth outcomes; maternal weight gain and side effects were the endpoints of concern

  11. Study Design • Desoxyn® Gradumet® (Abbott) • Sustained release formulation • Three doses: 5, 10 and 15 mg/day • Placebo control, double blind • Total of 84 participants • Initial dose: 22nd - 25th gestation week • Dosing duration: 15-16 weeks

  12. Results • Dose-related reduction in weight gain, highly statistically significant • EKG and lab tests normal • No consistent dose-related side effects • Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) = 5 mg/day = 0.08 mg/kg-day

  13. Uncertainty Factors • 10 – LOAEL to NOAEL extrapolation • 10 – variation in human sensitivity • 3 – incompleteness of toxicity database • Particular concern: potential neuro-developmental toxicity in young children • Total aggregate uncertainty factor: 300

  14. RfD Calculation LOAEL / UF = 0.08 mg/kg-day / 10x10x3 = 2.7 x 10-4 mg/kg-day = 0.3 µg/kg-day

  15. Exposure Dynamics of Active Lab Air Contamination Exposure Surface Contamination Time

  16. Exposure Pathways • Complete exposure pathways have: • Source of contamination • Release mechanism • Transport medium • Point of contact • Route of uptake (inhalation, ingestion, absorption across the skin) • Pathways operational during active and post-cleanup phases may differ substantially

  17. Post-Cleanup Exposure Pathways • AB 1078 timeline: remediation to re-occupancy requires 190 days • We assume inhalation of meth is not a significant exposure pathway • Post-cleanup exposure pathways include • Dermal contact & absorption across skin • Dermal contact & ingestion (skin-to-mouth) • Object contact & ingestion (object-to-mouth)

  18. Post-Cleanup Exposure Scenario • Populations of greatest concern: babies, toddlers, young children • Their behavior increases their exposure to surface contaminants • Frequent skin contact with floors and walls • Frequent mouthing activities

  19. Surface Exposure Model Direct Ingestion Dermal Uptake Incidental Ingestion Route of Uptake Inhalation 2° Medium Air Objects/Toys Skin Dermal Contact Removal Mechanism Resuspension Volatilization Transfer Contaminants Dust VOCs Contaminants SURFACE VOCs

  20. Daily Dermal Exposure Profile Zartarian et al., 2000

  21. Dermal Uptake of Meth • Dermal absorption studies using human skin were conducted at UC San Francisco • Dermal absorption  60% • This greatly improves our estimate of the hazard resulting from contact with meth-contaminated surfaces

  22. Exposure Scenario Assumptions • Uniform concentration on all surfaces • Non-depleting source concentration • Target population: 6-18 months old • No airborne methamphetamine • Duration of exposure: 90 days • No unremediated sources (e.g., air ducts) that could increase surface load

  23. Standard Operating Procedures • “SOPs” (U.S. EPA, 1997; revised 2001) • Provides a screening level (high end) estimate of absorbed dose • Deterministic: single value for each parameter in the exposure equation • Justification for parameter values is weak • Generates a point estimate of exposure

  24. Deterministic Analysis • Example: inhalation of toluene • Inhalation rate = 10 m3/8-hour workday • Concentration = 50 mg/m3 (8-hour TWA) • Dose = 500 mg/day • 10 m3/8 hours is an example of a default parameter value

  25. SOP Absorbed Dose Estimates • Meth residue level: 0.001 µg/cm2 Dose (µg/kg-day) Dermal absorption, carpet residue 3.2 Dermal absorption, floor residue 1.6 Non-dietary ingestion 0.15 TOTAL 4.95 • Total absorbed dose  5 µg/kg-day

  26. SHEDS-Multimedia • Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation (U.S. EPA, 2007) • Stochastic: most parameters represented by a distribution, not point values • Monte Carlo simulation: distributions sampled 100-1000 times to generate a distribution of absorbed dose estimates

  27. Stochastic Analysis Inhalation Rate Toluene Concentration Absorbed Dose

  28. SHEDS Absorbed Dose Estimates • Meth residue level: 0.001 µg/cm2 Dose (µg/kg-day) Dermal absorption from body 0.016 Dermal absorption from hands 0.002 Non-dietary ingestion 0.002 TOTAL 0.019 • 95th percentile total  0.02 µg/kg-day, or about 250x  SOP estimate

  29. SHEDS Exposure Pathways

  30. SHEDS Individual Exposure

  31. Current Status of SOPs • “DRAFT - DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE” • Weak experimental support for default parameter values • Available data suggest default values generate “high end” dose estimates • Last updated in 2001 • U.S. EPA does not appear to be pursuing further development of this model

  32. Current Status of SHEDS • Reviewed at three FIFRA SAP meetings • “…the best information on input variables at this time has been used” (December, 2003) • Most recent meeting: August, 2007 • U.S. EPA promoting model development • Validation studies ongoing • Model improvement assured as new data become available • Represents state-of-the-art

  33. Cleanup Standard Calculation • RfD = 0.3 µg/kg-day • SHEDS was run iteratively at increasing surface concentrations until the 95th percentile dose estimate was  RfD • Target remediation standard: 0.015 µg/cm2, or 1.5 µg/100 cm2 • Subject to peer review and comments

  34. Reviewer Questions: RfD • Justification for selecting Chapman (1961) as primary study for RfD • Statistical analysis of the data • Adequacy & relevance of supporting studies • Consistency of primary and supporting studies • Justification for uncertainty factors

  35. Reviewer Questions: Exposure • Exposure scenario assumptions • Focus on 6-18 month old children • Model descriptions • Justification for SHEDS assumptions • Justification for SHEDS parameters • Rationale for selecting SHEDS dose estimates to calculate cleanup standard

  36. Send Your Comments to… Mr. Leon SurgeonIntegrated Risk Assessment BranchOEHHAP.O. Box 4010, MS - 12BSacramento, California 95812-4010Fax:  (916) 322-9705E-mail:  irab@oehha.ca.gov

  37. Thank you! • Corey Yep (Cal/EPA, DTSC) • Jim Sanborn (Cal/EPA, OEHHA) • Xiaoying Hui (UC San Francisco) • Dave Siegel (Cal/EPA, OEHHA) • Mari Golub (Cal/EPA, OEHHA) • Farla Kaufman (Cal/EPA, OEHHA)

More Related